On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 08:11 -0700, Rose, Gregory V wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ijc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:04 AM > > To: Rose, Gregory V > > Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx; Jesse > > Barnes; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gospo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [net-next 1/8] pci: Add flag indicating device has been > > assigned by KVM > > > > On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 07:41 -0700, Rose, Gregory V wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ijc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:28 AM > > > > To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T > > > > Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx; Jesse Barnes; Rose, > > > > Gregory V; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gospo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [net-next 1/8] pci: Add flag indicating device has been > > > > assigned by KVM > > > > > > > > I suppose by that measure the comment could be less KVM specific: > > > > > + /* Provide indication device is assigned by KVM */ > > > > > + PCI_DEV_FLAGS_ASSIGNED = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) 4, > > > > > > We can resubmit with a more generic comment, maybe this: > > > > > > /* Provide indication device is assigned by a Virtual Machine Manager */ > > > > Sounds good to me. > > Dave, Jeff, > > Should I resubmit the patch or would it be more convenient to post a follow on patch that fixes up the comment? Either way is fine by me. > > - Greg > let's fix up the patch in my tree and add Jesse Barnes's ACK at the same time.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
